by John Helmer, Moscow
The German Government has revealed to the German parliament that it had decided Alexei Navalny (lead image, left) had been the victim of a crime within minutes of his collapse on board a flight between Tomsk and Moscow on August 20. That was before Navalny’s staff in Tomsk had begun filming their search of Navalny’s hotel room in Tomsk; and also before Navalny’s flight was diverted to Omsk, and he was examimed at the Omsk Emergency Hospital number 1.
The officials in Berlin (2nd, 3rd from left, right) who decided to send a medical evacuation aircraft to fly Navalny from Omsk to the Charité clinic in Berlin, now acknowledge that before they made this decision, they were “not aware” of the medical data on Navalny’s condition. Although the government arranged the evacuation flight, it says it has “no knowledge” of whether the German flight crew and medics on board the evacuation flight wore any form of protective clothing. No subsequent testing for contamination of the aircraft, ambulance, or personnel attending Navalny has occurred, according to the German officials. This is an indirect admission by the officials that the crime against Navalny was not treated as a chemical warfare attack until after it was reported  by the Institut für Pharmakologie und Toxikologie der Bundeswehr (IPTB, Institute for Pharmacology and Toxicology of the German Army) to the head of the German intelligence agency BND, Bruno Kahl, (2nd left) and by him to Chancellor Angela Merkel  (3rd left).
On September 2, thirteen days after the Germans say they knew there had been a crime, officials in Berlin now say they “provided all EU member States… as well as all NATO allies on 3 September 2020, with unequivocal evidence in writing of poisoning with a Novichok chemical warfare agent.” Only after that did the Germans request the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Swedish and French military experts to double-check by taking samples of Navalny’s “biomaterials” (blood, urine). The Bundestag has been told the Swedes arrived at Navalny’s bedside on September 5; the French and the OPCW on September 6. The Swedes reported  back to Berlin in 48 hours, on September 7; the French took four days until September 10; the OPCW needed almost a month for their testing until October 5 .
The latest admissions by German officials also reveal that the water bottle which Navalny staff claim to have been the murder weapon has not been analysed by the Germans themselves, the Swedes, French or the OPCW. The bottle, brought from Tomsk to Berlin by Navalny’s associate Maria Pevchikh, has not been fingerprinted in Germany to confirm whether Navalny had touched it.
German officials told the Bundestag they are “not aware” and have “no data” on whether Pevchikh was on board Navalny’s medevac aircraft, or whether she carried the bottle to Germany. Asked to confirm if Pevchikh has been questioned by the German authorities, the officials say: “It is impossible to answer this question due to the current rules of law. Despite the fundamental constitutional obligation of the Federal government to meet the information requests of the Bundestag, it is affected by the need to keep certain data secret due to current legal norms. Not to distribute the details of the criminal process to the public is the principle of the rule of law, which has equal constitutional force.”
These disclosures in the form of official answers presented to 76 questions submitted by deputies of the Alternative for Germany party (Alternative für Deutschland, AfD) were published by the Bundestag on November 19. A translation into Russian by Ekho Moskvy radio station and the Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper appeared on Monday of this week. Deustche Welle, the German state propaganda organ – motto, “Made for Minds” — has not reported the question-and-answer document in either German or English.
No Anglo-American newspaper has reported the document in English.
Titled “Answer by the Federal Government to the Small Question by Dr Anton Friesen, Armin-Paulus Hampel, Dr Roland Hartwig, other deputies and the AfD faction”, the original Bundestag document can be read in German here .
Source: https://dip21.bundestag.de/ 
Source: https://www.ng.ru 
Read excerpts from the Bundestag document:
“Q21. What is the reason why the expert opinion of the attending doctor was not provided at the press conference of the Charité [clinic], where it was announced that Navalny was poisoned?
A: The Federal government is not aware of this.
Q37. Are the results of the research of the [German Army] Institute for Pharmacology and Toxicology identical with the results of French and Swedish laboratories? Have foreign experts examined other samples besides those taken from the bottle in the hotel room?
A: The results of the research by the Institute for Pharmacology and Toxicology, as well as the French and Swedish laboratories, are based on biomaterials [blood and urine] taken from Alexei Navalny himself.
Q41. Were traces of Novichok found to have [originated in]a liquid or powder form?
A: The detected traces do not give any indication of the initial physical state of the substance used.
Q62. How is it possible that Maria Pevichkh was able to bring a highly toxic substance from Tomsk via Omsk to Berlin without putting herself and others at serious risk?
A: The Federal Government has no knowledge of this.
Q64. Did the Federal Government organize an analysis of whether when Alexei Navalny came into contact with a poisoned water bottle, the traces of Novichok should have been found on Navalny’s hands, and his fingerprints should have been found on the bottle itself?
A: The Federal Government has no findings on the question of fingerprints.
Q65. Has the Federal Government taken steps to ensure the water bottle was checked for all fingerprints? If so, what were the results and whose prints were found? If not, why not?
A: It is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to conduct a forensic examination.
Q75. Has the Federal Government released the exact composition of the Novichok compound found? If not, why not?
A: Given the high risks of the leaking of information, the Federal Government did not disclose [to the Russian government] any details of the substance used.”
Q76. Does the Federal Government share the opinion of the [AfD] authors of the questions that a precise definition of the Novichok substance is necessary to prove a violation of the Convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons?
A: The Convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons prohibits the use of any toxic substance, except for its use for purposes not prohibited by the Convention. A precise definition of the substance is not required in this case, since it was used for purposes prohibited by the Convention.”
To date, the only detailed analysis of the Bundestag revelations was published on December 1 by Florian Roetzer (right) in
Telepolis of Hanover. Contrasting the British response to the alleged Novichok attack on the Skripals with the German management of the Navalny case, Roetzer says: “Remember the massive precautions taken by the British authorities in Salisbury to lock down the places where the Skripals were staying and the house. The objects in the house were burned, including the cat, and the roof was disposed of. The rescue plane does not even seem to have been examined for traces. The [German] federal government argues just as succinctly that according to the motto ‘It’s none of our business’, it is altogether indifferent if it was a Novichok attack that took place via tea, touching a bottle or clothing or in any other way”
“The game between Berlin and Moscow is also clear.”